Shaw & Anor v MFP Foundations and Pilings Ltd

Shaw & Anor v MFP Foundations and Pilings Ltd

The arbitrator addressed all issues put to him except one minor item, which was later corrected without prejudice. Any errors in approach to valuation were not substantial enough to affect the parties' rights. There was no serious irregularity or error of law justifying intervention, and no basis for extension of time.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Christopher Shaw; Claimant: Mrs Gabriele Shaw; Defendant: MFP Foundations and Pilings Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal, and Challenge to Arbitral Award
Outcome
Claim dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69, Liquidated Damages, Prolongation Costs, Measure of Damages for Repudiatory Breach, Extension of Time for Appeal
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69 Liquidated Damages Prolongation Costs Measure of Damages for Repudiatory Breach +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Christopher Shaw

Claimant

Mrs Gabriele Shaw

Claimant

MFP Foundations and Pilings Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal, and Challenge to Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator failed to deal with all issues put to him (s.68(2)(d))
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's approach to valuation and measure of damages was obviously wrong (s.69)
  3. 3 Whether the liquidated damages provision survived repudiation

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator addressed all issues put to him except one minor item, which was later corrected without prejudice. Any errors in approach to valuation were not substantial enough to affect the parties' rights. There was no serious irregularity or error of law justifying intervention, and no basis for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed
  • Permission to appeal under section 69 refused